Born at the Crest of the Empire

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Sadr provokes?

This has all sorts of complications as these (mostly fighting age, mostly Sadr loyal) Shia would be passing en masse through some deeply Sunni territory. The probability of incidents would seem high. So, what's the idea here? What's he trying to accomplish?

Israel plans an invasion of Gaza

On items like this you never know how real the threat is. It would certainly be surprising if Israel wasn't working on plans to "retake" Gaza, but whether that means an attack like this will actually come to pass is another matter entirely.

I think the key question is, does Maliki object to arming the Sunnis as a Shiite factionalist, Iranian associate, or as a governmental figure?

The reason I bring this up is that there are persistent rumors from the Shia factions that the US is arming the Sunnis not to fight Al Qaeda, but instead to counterbalance Iranian shipments, to placate Sunni regional powers like Saudi Arabia, or to arm the Sunnis for a coup or civil war.

I don't put much stock in those rumors as I don't think the US is working at that level, but those rumors are out there, and they are certainly coming to Maliki from his supporters, and thus, impacting the politics.

What are the larger political dynamics of the US arming the Sunnis? Does it make Maliki less willing to work with the US? More so? Does it undermine him?

Picture of the Day - 2

Muslim worshipers pray in the street after they were prevented from entering the Al Aqsa Mosque compound, outside Damascus Gate in Jerusalem's Old City, Friday, June 15, 2007. Israel imposed restrictions on Friday prayers in the Al Aqsa Mosque, allowing only men over 45 and women over 35 enter the compound. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner)

A timeline on Iran

The NYTimes has a lengthy piece on the two sides of the Iran debate within the administration, Rice vs. Cheney, diplomacy vs. attack, and a vague talk of "some yet-undefined milestones" that the Iranians will not be allowed to cross.

We've heard all that before.

I found this Tapped post far more interesting. It represents the situation not as a debate about strategy within factions, but as a clock running out on diplomacy.

Political bits

(Politico) Romney at the National Right to Life convention. "I know that it is not time but conviction that unites us." (What an eloquent way to hide a "flip flop" on a passionate issue.)

(Politico) McCain wasn't at the NRLC convention after being punked by a Romney advisor working there.

(CNN) One of the complications is that McCain was in a "mad dash" for fundraising. (Oh no, McCain didn't just use the word "benchmarks" in describing his fundraising.)

(HuffPo) "If (Bill) Kristol says what I'm doing is right, it must be right," from Joe "I'm so glad he's no longer a Democrat" Lieberman.

(TPM) Charges that Bradley Schlozman was trying to clear the DoJ Civil Rights division of Democrats so that he could replace them with 'good Americans.'

(TPM, NYTimes) Everyone is just shocked that the Obama campaign engages in opposition research.

And, I don't know if I agree with all the assumptions and conclusions, but a very interesting question about the relative strength of the netroots/bloggers versus the newer MySpace model for political candidates.

And, not that I would encourage it, but Michael Moore's Sicko has hit the filesharing services.

Later: Mike Elston, chief of staff to Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty has resigned. "He confirmed his plans to leave but declined further comment." (Doesn't he have a family he can "spend more time with?")

By the way, that's the top five people under Gonzales who have all resigned.

Picture of the Day - 2

(Iraqslogger) "Insurgents disguised themselves as cameramen so as not to raise suspicion while planting explosives at a major Sunni mosque near Basra early Friday morning. They detonated the bombs shortly after they left, destroying the mosque, and raising fears that sectarian fallout from Wednesday's Samarra mosque bombing is stretching deep into southern Iraq."

(AL-ZUBAIR, IRAQ: A general view of the destruction inflicted to a Sunni mosque that was attacked in the city of Al-Zubair near the southern city of Basra, 15 June 2007. (AFP/Getty))

Gates is fighting PR at the top of the US command.

Also of interest, a day after Gen. Petraeus got blasted over his seemingly overoptimistic comments, ""astonishing signs of normalcy" in half, perhaps two-thirds of Baghdad," Sec Def Gates is in Baghdad trying to temper those comments, "It's a very mixed picture," Gates told reporters.

That's right. The hundreds of US troops and thousands of Iraqis that have died over the last months don't count because the full force wasn't in. Just because we've had a three month presence in some of these neighborhoods as violence and killings have continued, that doesn't count.

With the full deployment in Diyala for two months, that didn't count either, because it's that last neighborhood in Baghdad that is causing the killings in Diyala.

I guess it's officially starting now because the early report card was so bad.

(Oh, and please ignore the political and reconstruction elements of "the surge". Apparently, we told the Iraqis to hold off on these until we were able to "execute the strategy as it was designed.")

In a broader sense, it is becoming far more clear exactly who is in charge in this war. As the US initially deployed in "the surge," combatant groups from all sides pulled back to view the new US positioning. Violence went down.

Now, with a larger US force in place, they have decided to return to previous activities, and the violence has risen again.

Perhaps the best example is the first day after the Askariyah shrine bombing where there was relatively little retributional violence. Many may try to credit that to the US presence, but I think it points more towards the level of control of the insurgent and militia leaders.

The lesson is that they can turn it on and off like a faucet, no matter how US troops are arrayed.

They're in control, not us.

(Friday prayers today.)

(By the way, what ever happened to the 5 captured Britons? Or the two missing US soldiers?)

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Picture of the Day - 4

A Palestinian woman hugs her son, after being evacuated from Nahr al-Bared refugee camp, at the Palestinian Beddawi refugee camp in northern Lebanon June 14, 2007. The army has been battling al Qaeda-inspired Islamist militants at a Palestinian refugee camp in the north for more than three weeks. Sporadic clashes continued on Thursday, with troops pounding Fatah al-Islam positions in Nahr al-Bared. REUTERS/Loay Abu Haykel

Picture of the Day - 3

(Reuters) "Militants ambushed a vehicle on Thursday, killing six soldiers and three other people in the southwest Pakistan city of Quetta, hours after a visit by a senior U.S. official, Pakistani military officials said."

(Politico) McCain's campaign bought the URL "MittvsFact.com." "A McCain aide confirmed today that they secured the site last month and indicated that they would use it as a sort of one-stop shop "to brand" Romney. "

And, if you didn't see this, it's interesting. From Politico, excerpts (.pdf) from the NSRC guide on how to exploit the blogosphere.

Later: Ex-Rove aide, now Arkansas US attorney Tim Griffin "chokes up" in an interview saying "his experience as U.S. attorney had not been worth the criticism he and his wife have endured." (Yeah, it's hell to have it pointed out that you got a patronage job that you're not qualified for.)

If Libby is going to prison during his appeal, and the White House "will continue not to intervene in the judicial process," that would seem to mean that Scooter will not be pardoned before he goes into prison.

And, if I remember right, Scooter Libby has his hearing today to decide whether he goes to prison soon or remains free during his appeals. (Any chance I'll get to see him crying and screaming "Mom, help me?")

Questions on polling, immigration, and legacy

Is this new NBC/WSJ poll showing Bush at 29% approval a "shock value" outlier or part of a broader trend? Over the last few weeks, the Bush approval number has been hitting new lows in several polls, but I don't have a sense whether this is the normal ebb and ebb of the Bush presidency or part of something larger.

For almost a year, Bush approval has been dancing around in the 30's, sustained almost entirely by self identified Republican support. I have been watching for an erosion in that support because of Bush's immigration proposal. As yet, that hasn't really happened.

Are these latest polls beginning to show Bush losing Republicans over immigration? Will that be a substantial loss?

(And, maybe we should question the political decision of this White House to chase its version of immigration reform at all. The political upside is almost entirely related to "legacy," while the downsides are all likely to be felt over the next 18 months.

They're risking/losing what little support and influence Bush has among Congressional Republicans which effects not only legislative items, but also the defensive oversight measures like fighting subpoenas and investigations.

In this gamble for immigration, they've risked not only the domestic agenda part of the Bush legacy, but also ceded alot of ground to the Congressional Dems who will now play a much larger "oversight" role in defining the history and actions of the Bush presidency.)

Last: I maintain that a President's legacy is primarily written by his defenders and loyalists. as they're the ones that fill the media with positive recollections of a president, reframing his specific actions and intiatived to construct a broader theme of a presidency.

Will this perceived "betrayal" on immigration stay with them? Will it diminish their passion as they try to reframe Iraq as courageous a decade from now?

Maybe I'm reading too much into the current passionate resistance to Bush's immigration proposal, I don't know, but reading the comments and opinions of the rank and file, I find it hard to believe this will be forgotten.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Picture of the Day - 3

Iraq rests on a knife's edge. Lebanon steps closer to collapse. The Palestinians are in a civil war, and where is Bush tonight?

He's rubbing shoulders at The President's Dinner, the top NRCC/NRSC fundraiser of the year.(President Bush waves after speaking at the 2007 President's Dinner, Wednesday, June 13, 2007, in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta))

The middle east is on fire....

In Lebanon, an anti-Syrian lawmaker was killed in a massive carbombing. "Lebanon has been hit by a wave of assassinations targeting anti-Syrian figures.... Eido was the seventh anti-Syrian politician to be killed since Hariri."

In the Palestinian territories, the violence between Hamas and Fatah has significantly escalated across the Gaza strip with Hamas "seizing a major Fatah security base and control of main roads." CNN is reporting that Fatah is retaliating in the West Bank.

(Later: (AP) "Hamas pounded Gaza City's three main security compounds and President Mahmoud Abbas' headquarters with mortars, grenades and assault rifles Wednesday, calling on beleaguered Fatah forces to surrender in an apparent attempt to take control of the entire Gaza Strip.")

A thought on the Askariyah mosque bombing in Samarra

Take a second and step back to look at the motivation behind today's inflammatory attack in Samarra.

For a couple weeks, the US has been managing a loose cooperation with local Sunni nationalists and ex-Baathists in an effort to drive Al Qaeda from some key neighborhoods in Baghdad and Diyala.

Suddenly, with this bombing, those local Sunni groups will have to abandon that effort, turning from attacking Al Qaeda to protecting their neighborhoods from a likely Shia response. They may even look to Al Qaeda for help.

If there is no response, Al Qaeda, at the very least, bought themselves some "breathing space" through this bombing.

There may be some chaos tonight, but we'll have to wait a day or two to see if there's any authorized militia response.

Picture of the Day

A man carries a portrait of most influential Shiite cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in the holy city of Najaf, Wednesday, June 13, 2007, as Iraqi Shiites protested a bombing of a holy Shiite shrine in Samarra earlier in the day. Suspected al-Qaida insurgents on Wednesday destroyed the two minarets of the Askariya Shiite shrine in Samarra. (AP Photo/Alaa al-Marjani)

Askariyah mosque attacked in Samarra

The Askariyah mosque has been attacked again. Two minarets at the mosque have been brought down. From early eyewitness accounts, it sounds like a demolition rather than a car bomb as they were brought down seven minutes apart. Early reports don't seem to indicate any gunfire around the attack. Where were the security forces?

Samarra has been locked down. There's a vehicle and "large gathering" ban in Baghdad. Sadr, Sistani, and other major Shia figures are calling for calm.

(AP) "Just before the curfew was to take hold, Shiite militiamen carrying light weapons fanned out across Jihad, a mixed neighborhood in western Baghdad, police said. No violence was immediately reported.

The 30-member bloc loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr suspended its membership in parliament Wednesday, saying they will stay away from the 275-seat house until the government takes "realistic" steps to rebuild the Askariya shrine."

(Reuters) "Police and the senior government official said the Shi'ite-dominated Interior Ministry had been responsible for security at the mosque. Police said the ministry took over from local security forces in April.

"We know that two weeks ago there was an attempt to also target it, but it was foiled," the official said."

(WaPo) "In response to Wednesday's attack, the entire Iraqi security force responsible for guarding the mosque, the 3rd Battalion of the Salahaddin Province police, was detained for investigation, Iraqi law enforcement officials said. The collapse of the two minarets appeared to have been caused by explosive charges placed at their bases."

(More as it comes in.)

CNN reports gunfire before the demolitions. "The blast followed clashes between gunmen and Iraqi National Police, who were guarding the holy site. During the firefight, the insurgents entered the mosque, also known as the Golden Dome, planted explosives around the minarets and detonated them."

(NYTimes) "Since the attack in 2006, the shrine had been under the protection of local — predominantly Sunni — guards. But American military and Iraqi security officials had recently become concerned that the local unit had been infiltrated by Al Qaeda forces in Iraq.

A move by the Ministry of Interior in Baghdad over the last few days to bring in a new guard unit — predominantly Shiite — may have been linked to the attack today."....

(WaPo) Lt. Gen. Dempsey says the Iraqi Army and Police need to be expanded and that, because of the slow progress on "standing up" the Iraqis, the US will have to keep supplying basic security for years.

Picture of the Day - 2

A US soldier and a private security contractor pull out a wounded Iraqi from the rubble of a bridge destroyed by an apparent suicide vehicle bomber on Sunday, June 10, 2007,outside Mahmoudiya. (AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris)

What are the long term impacts of a "Korea like" presence in Iraq?

One of the fascinating things to me about the discussion of a permanent/long term "Korea like" presence in Iraq is that all the arguments on both sides seem to look at Iraq as if it is in a vacuum. Yes, the arguments are made about Iran and the Saudi oil fields, but very little deference is paid to the larger problem of "hearts and minds," the root and soul of America's terror problem.

While an extended presence in Iraq may in fact allow a launch point against both state actors and non-state movements in the region, at the same time, the US presence will generate the perception of an imperial power imposing itself on the Islamic world which will create more anti-American sentiment from which more terrorists will grow.

I guess the question is, how do you balance that equation? Is that forward presence worth an increase in the number of Al Qaeda members? Which is a greater national security interest, an ascendant Iran, or more terrorists focused on the US? In the broader terrorism balance sheet, is the payoff worth the cost?

This president often likes to say that he wants to take the fight to the terrorists, that he wants to be "on the offense," but there's a backside to that strategy. Teams that focus on offense often give up goals, and in this game that could mean American lives on American soil.

I don't have an answer to this. I just wanted to broaden the discussion a little. For all the talk of Iraq being a part of the war on terror, there seems to be very little appreciation of the broader resonances.

Picture of the Day

(AP) "Lines of police barred opposition voters from some polling stations Monday, and violence erupted between supporters of rival candidates, killing one person and marring the elections for Egypt's upper house of parliament."

Look, Maliki knows he has the Americans trapped in Iraq for at least the remainder of the Bush presidency. These "deadlines" are meaningless to him. He faces far larger and more direct threats from inside his own country.

And, why do Fallon and the other administration officials see this urgency as a priority? Is it because they see this act as a beginning of reconciliation, a turning point in the dynamics of the conflict?

Picture of the Day - 2

An Iraqi boy reacts by a burning patrol car in Samarra, Monday, June 11, 2007. A roadside bomb went off Monday morning next to a police commando patrol, killing two commandos and injuring three others, police said. (AP Photo/Hameed Rasheed)

The US military confirms it is arming Sunni militants in Baghdad

The open question on this strategy is what happens after these groups have been armed, trained, and worked with US units and tactics. The Anbar "coalition" on which this Baghdad strategy is modelled is already beginning to come apart.

Now, I don't know if the "Islamists" really represent as small of a threat as presented by these governmental dissidents, but I do believe that these governments benefit from a hyped presentation of the threat.

(Probably should add Saudi Arabia and a few others to the list.)

Related, The LATimes reports on US "soft pedaling" on Sudan in exchange for information about Al Qaeda in Iraq and elsewhere.

Dear Washington Post

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Picture of the Day - 2

President George W. Bush reacts to a question as he and Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha speak to reporters after their meeting at the Council of Ministers in Tirana June 10, 2007. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

It may just be the diplomatic language Powell's known for, but I find it interesting that he's not committing to the GOP and more or less asking for a government post in the next (Democratic?) presidency.

Picture of the Day - Except in Albania

All around Europe and the world, the arrival of President Bush evokes anger and protests, except for Albania.

(AP) "President Bush, getting a hero's welcome as the first American president to visit Albania.... Albania has such an affinity for America that it issued three postage stamps with Bush's picture and the Statue of Liberty and renamed a street in front of parliament in his honor."

(Reuters) "The streets were nearly empty as almost everyone stayed inside to watch day long "Bush Special" live coverage on television.....

The United States won Albania's unquestioning loyalty in 1999 when then president Bill Clinton pushed reluctant European allies to intervene in Kosovo 1999, ordering NATO bombing to stop Serbia's brutal crackdown on Albanian separatists province."

(Albanians pick up top hats fitted with American flags to celebrate the visit of the U.S. President George W. Bush in Tirana June 10, 2007. REUTERS/Arben Celi )

This is a fairly responsible way forward (remarkably similar to the ISG,) however, I wonder about the practical application of this.

The real underlying question is left unanswered. Would US troops really sit on the sidelines as Shia militia and death squad groups coupled with Iraqi police sweep through neighborhoods? Would this president (or the next) allow American forces to "guard the borders" as a civil war reopens to take tens of thousands of lives?

The only real way "out" is to accept the civil war.

(I also don't like the seamless way this can (and probably will) be concerted into a permanent, longterm military presence similar to the "Korea model" the administration has been floating.

Because of the politics of this poorly executed war, so long as US troops remain on Iraqi soil, that presence will continue to generate both insurgents in Iraq and terrorists across the broader Muslim world.)

Later: One point of this continued presence is also probably a concession to the Saudis and other Sunni regional powers. Will they similarly sit back and allow a Shiite domination?

"The other war" ain't going so great either

(AP) "Taliban militants fired rockets near a school yard where President Hamid Karzai was meeting with local leaders and residents on Sunday in central Afghanistan in an apparent assassination attempt, but no one was hurt, officials and witnesses said."

About This Blog

This is not the America I was brought up to believe in.
This blog seeks to highlight abuse of power, deception, corruption, and just plain bad ideas in government and corporations.
Updated several times a day.